Two different ways to code a goal-directed movement have been proposed in the literature: vector coding and position coding. Assuming that the code is fine-tuned if a movement is immediately repeated, one can predict that repeating movements to the same endpoint will increase precision if movements are coded in terms of the position of the endpoint. Repeating the same movement vector at slightly different positions will increase precision if movements are coded in terms of vectors. Following this reasoning, Hudson and Landy (J Neurophys 108(10):2708–2716, 2012) found evidence for both types of coding when participants moved their hand over a table while the target and feedback were provided on a vertical screen. Do we also see evidence for both types of coding if participants repeat movements within a more natural visuo-motor mapping? To find out, we repeated the study of Hudson and Landy (J Neurophys 108(10):2708–2716, 2012), but our participants made movements directly to the targets. We compared the same movements embedded in blocks of repetitions of endpoints and blocks of repetitions of movement vectors. Within blocks, the movements were presented in a random order. We found no benefit of repeating either a position or a vector. We subsequently repeated the experiment with a similar mapping between movements and images to those used by Hudson and Landy and found that participants only clearly benefit from repeating a position. We conclude that repeating a position is particularly useful when dealing with unusual visuo-motor mappings.
- Arm movement
- Reference frame